News


Teen well-being collaborative seeks new model

Project Safety Net leaders contemplate new wellness center

Palo Alto's broad-reaching mental health coalition formed five years ago in response to teen suicides, Project Safety Net, today finds itself at a crossroads after losing its second director in two years. Largely exhausted and very eager to use $2 million in city funding to make progress on issues that still plague Palo Alto youth, city staff is recommending to the City Council's Policy and Services Committee next week not to refill the director position.

Project Safety Net last month suddenly lost Joe Herrity, who filled the position in June after it had been vacant for close to nine months. Herrity came to Palo Alto with six years of experience at a Milpitas nonprofit, Fresh Lifelines for Youth, that works with incarcerated and at-risk youth. Herrity resigned effective Sept. 23 to care for a family member who had been diagnosed with a serious illness.

Herrity had replaced Christina Llerena, a veteran social worker hired in the spring of 2012 to lead the community collaborative. She resigned after 16 months on the job, accepting a position with West Valley Community College, which offered benefits the Project Safety Net job did not carry, she said at the time.

Llerena declined to comment for this story. Herrity told the Weekly that as a single, 32-year-old with no children who was used to working in the nonprofit sector, the lack of benefits and low salary were not a problem for him.

The nature of the program director position it is hourly and offers no benefits or job security, yet expects a high level of work and leadership that reaches across more than 40 organizations, from the schools to faith groups to nonprofits has made it difficult to attract and retain a director, city staff has said.

"In our review of where we are today as a collaborative, we think that trying to hire again with the resources that we have -- in other words essentially an hourly person with no benefits -- we're not going to be able to get the kind of professional we would hope to have in this leadership role," said Rob De Geus, assistant director for the city's Community Services Department, the lead city department for Project Safety Net. "It's really a time to step back a little back and reflect on what alternative approaches we might use to hold the collaborative together."

Office of Human Services head Minka van der Zwaag said staff went looking twice for a director before hiring Herrity, not finding anyone suitable the first time. Before Llerena, the collaborative was mostly volunteer-led, with much of the work coordinating with member agencies falling on the shoulders of the city and school district.

"It's been a real challenge for the leadership committee and a challenge for Rob and I as the city staff that are related to Project Safety Net," van der Zwaag told more than 20 representatives from many of the collaborative's participating agencies -- Palo Alto Medical Foundation, the YMCA, Adolescent Counseling Services, Palo Alto Library, the Palo Alto Council of PTAs, among others -- at an Oct. 9 meeting, the first broad meeting of the group in months.

"To attract and retain a highly qualified professional to lead the PSN collaborative in its current structure, experience has demonstrated we would require a fully benefited position," the Policy and Services staff report reads. "Approximately seven years ago the City had a fulltime At Risk Youth benefited manager position that might have been an appropriate position to serve as the PSN Director, but that position was removed from the budget. Hiring an hourly administrative support staff remains feasible, but the lead facilitator role, albeit in a more limited capacity with respect to time, is recommended to be overseen by existing City and PAUSD staff."

In the wake of Herrity's sudden resignation, the Project Safety Net leadership team discussed what kind of structure could work best for the coalition moving forward.

Despite the staff report's explicit recommendation not to rehire a director, Project Safety Net leadership team members insist this is just one of many ideas percolating now. The group is in the early stage of a larger conversation, they said.

At the Oct. 9 meeting, staff said that one model could direct dollars previously spent on the director to programs, agencies or individuals working on issues around suicide prevention and mental health.

In 2013, the City Council allocated $2 million in health and safety funds to Project Safety Net from the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Development Agreement, a deal struck between city and hospital so the university could massively expand its medical facilities. Of that, approximately $320,000 has been spent, primarily on salaries for the directors; support of TrackWatch, which provides security guards at two Caltrain crossings; and miscellaneous program expenses such as suicide prevention and youth well-being events, according to the staff report.

Project Safety Net has also received significant funding from the County of Santa Clara, parent volunteers, the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund, a Stanford University Community Partnership Award and the Palo Alto Firefighters' Pancake Breakfast fundraising event.

"This is something that ultimately we want to recommend," De Geus said of allocating funding directly to partners. "Project Safety Net is only as good and as strong as the partners sitting around the table that are actually out there doing the work. To the extent that we can leverage the collaborative and get funding out to our partners so they can do even more than they already do, we think that's a big part of what we ought to be recommending with the funding that's available. How we get that funding out to partners -- that's going to be a question that we need to discuss with our City Council."

Councilmember Gail Price, who has long worked with Project Safety Net and also serves on the county's Behavioral Health Board, stressed at the Oct. 9 meeting that such a model -- and working with such a significant amount of money -- requires systemic, thoughtful structure and accountability.

"I think, again, with this amount of money or the potential of using up to $2 million, it seems to me you need a focus and you need a structure and you need someone who helps lead that work," she later told the Weekly. "But I am reserving my full opinion until I see what the staff says; maybe they'll come up with two or three different models that make sense."

Becky Beacom, health educator with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation who has served on the Project Safety Net leadership team, said at the meeting that she's seen other collaboratives, sans a head or director, successfully rotate the leadership and coordinating role among agencies.

"The one thing that hasn't changed is people's interest in working on this," Beacom said. "It's just, how do we do it in a way that focuses our attention on the work rather than on administrative stuff?"

Beacom said much of the collaborative's work in recent years has been focused on process rather than action. A steering committee with 20 member organizations worked for six months to develop a "theory of change" document, whose adoption coincided with Llerena's departure. The new structure sliced the number of committees from seven to three and the number of anti-suicide "strategies" from 22 to nine.

Much of the next year was dedicated to the hiring process.

"I think that's part of the issue of momentum," Beacom said. "My feeling is, just bring us together and let this community do what this community does really well. ... The risk is if you don't bring people together, then everybody starts doing disparate things rather than having a strategic approach."

Price said Beacom's idea of a shared leadership model "can be very, very effective, but shared leadership where there's a potential of managing up to $2 million, that's a whole different story. Who owns the fiscal responsibility for managing the fiscal resources? That's the key difference."

De Geus also pitched at last week's meeting the idea of making a "bold investment," such as building a wellness center that would serve as home-base for all Project Safety Net members and affiliated programs.

PTA President Susan Usman lauded the idea of having a physical space that would be both a "one-stop shop" for youth and an anchor for the coalition.

"Project Safety Net needs an anchor," she said on Oct. 9.

Former program director Herrity called a wellness center "an appropriate and logical next step" for the collaborative.

"The entire effort is very beautiful. It's a true community response to a tragedy ... but what I might say is that that effort had a natural timeline to it because the further away you get from the point of crisis, I think the urgency wanes," he said.

"I think the wellness center is really, really the right direction to go because that is the pinnacle of collaboration between the city and the school district, in my opinion, and it creates an actual place, a physical place that is that expression of community support, unity and commitment to young people," he added.

Brenda Carrillo, Project Safety Net co-chair and student services coordinator for the school district, said other communities have seen successful outcomes from wellness centers that incorporate both mental and physical health for students.

"The wellness center we think has some merit in terms of enhancing the work that's already happening at the schools and it's something our schools are interested in. ... It's one of the options we're looking at, but we haven't landed anywhere as far as next steps on that."

Gunn High School is currently in the preliminary stages of designing its own wellness center, which could consolidate counselors, psychologists, Adolescent Counseling Services and perhaps college and career counseling in one space, said Assistant Principal Tom Jacoubowsky.

Staff will present their report to Policy and Services on Tuesday, Oct. 21, at 7 p.m. in the Council Conference Room at City Hall. Policy and Services will then make recommendations to the City Council for next steps.

"The three key conversations that are the starting point of this are (with the) leadership team, our strategic collaborative partners and then our council, and we really feel like those triad of conversations are going to give the lead team and key city staff and school district staff the next steps to go on," van der Zwaag said.

View the Policy and Services Oct. 21 agenda here.

Related: Coroner releases identity of man killed on train tracks

Comments

2 people like this
Posted by Good people, wrong approach
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 17, 2014 at 10:15 am

A building will mean more money will be asked of the community, and this collaborative (which struggles to figure out direction) will also need more money over time.

The building will need to be self-sustaining, and have it's own donor base. Virtually all of these organizations in the collaborative raise money separately for their own programs, so they will add one more program to compete with their own.

In the meantime, our schools are getting bigger and less personal. Why not use the money to staff more qualified mental health counselors in the schools?


1 person likes this
Posted by Good people, wrong approach
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 17, 2014 at 2:28 pm

The related article "School district increases counseling support at Gunn" speaks to the issues about where resources are needed

We already have buildings - the schools themselves.


Posted by barn door, horse
a resident of Gunn High School
49 minutes ago
Counseling support at Gunn should be better every day, not just the day after a tragedy. Counseling support at Gunn has been severely lagging for many years. There are too few adults available to be in the lives of students. There was a district committee that documented all the problems with Gunn counseling and how to improve it 2 years ago. They had 44 strategies for improvement. Very very few of them were implemented. They should ALL be implemented NOW. This is a travesty, to rush extra support there after it's happened. All these supports should have been increased in a permanent basis years ago. Parents at Gunn are going to have to stop waiting and start taking action to get extra support, the same as they have at Paly on an ongoing basis. What are we waiting for?


1 person likes this
Posted by Paly Parent
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 17, 2014 at 4:21 pm

Since we are discussing this in a comprehensive way, I think it is important for us to remember that a teen needs to be able to have some fun times each week rather than school, homework and challenging extra curricula. It is good for a family to get out together, but I think there should also be some good old fashioned hang out time with pals.

Youth activities that do not emphasize performance, but are based on the individual, run by mentoring adults who are not parents or teachers are a great way for a teen to balance the stresses of their lives with some down time in a safe environment. Many churches have some great youth programs and are very inviting and inclusive to everyone. The youth leaders are usually well trained and experienced.

Please don't discount the great work that these youth activities do for youth and the value the programs can have in their young lives


Like this comment
Posted by Gunn Alum parent
a resident of Ventura
on Oct 18, 2014 at 10:08 am

Our family was deeply impacted by the 2009 suicides and we did get help from both Adolescent Counseling Services (ACS) and private therapists.

While individual therapy can be very helpful, I believe our youth would strongly benefit from small group sessions where they can see that their peers are struggling too and they are not alone with their pain.

Please consider using Safety Net funds to expand ACS programs at our schools NOW.

Don't wait, lives are at stake.


Like this comment
Posted by Good people
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 18, 2014 at 10:39 am

While more mental health counselors are critical, I meant adding qualified school counselors for screening, and not the automatic referral to ACS, when it may be too late. I have heard mixed opinions about therapy helping people who are not in the red zone, and don't necessarily warrant a referral to a therapist, or group therapy.

Besides big schools, and too much homework, there are other factors about stress reduction. Developmental, cultural issues, and therapy alone couldn't be the single course of action for prevention. What you keep hearing is that if you are going to talk about sensitive issues with a teen, do it when you are not necessarily staring at each other in the face, but when you're driving in the car, when cooking together, or any other task.

The types of things Paly parent brings up - youth activities run by mentoring adults seems better. Smaller schools. If there is a new middle or high school, and people really want a physical building, the money could go to that.


3 people like this
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 18, 2014 at 9:23 pm

Seems well intentioned but overly elaborate and bureaucratic. Simplify and do some direct initiatives that are meaningful. The problems of the world can't be solved in a day, but something can be done to help youth in this area.I read of 20 community partner organizations and etc. and it seems too much, and the fact that salaries have been paid without apparent programs or implementation of anything meaningful. Narrow the focus and accomplish something before a lot of kids cycle through this age group.


5 people like this
Posted by A parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 19, 2014 at 1:43 pm

I agree. Bureaucracy tends to want to feed itself first. If we are going to spend money on a building, we should open Cubberly in whole or part to create more optimally-sized school communities.

I agree with Paly Parent, too, kids need more time to just hang out and dream, and have fun with friends. They need to have the time in a predictable way, not just here and there. When they have time these days, such as it is, their friends don't.

If we are going to spend money, instead of a building, we could put together a real intramural sports program, the kind that promotes fun and activity as opposed to athletic achievement. Having the ability to play pick-up ball games without the commitment of league sports would give kids a chance to participate in sports in a way they currently don't have available in this district. (No, there is no private organization offering such a thing, either.)

That would provide a lot of physical wellness without requiring another building. The usual excuse is that we don't have the money, so better to spend money on that first.


2 people like this
Posted by Good people
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 19, 2014 at 2:03 pm

THANK YOU for bringing up a real intramural sports program.

Physical exercise is not just fun, it is actually among the lines of defense for mental health, right up there with medication. A no brainer.

There are many things that students themselves have advocated for (a search in student journals will yield some), including IM, and there has never been a response to these long standing appeals.


4 people like this
Posted by Good people
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 19, 2014 at 2:12 pm

A real intramural sports program would also be an even more fitting statement that the community cares about supporting all students with resources, and not only those who are extremely qualified or gifted. It would help curb the anxiety and competition in this area at least.


Like this comment
Posted by Developers again
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Oct 20, 2014 at 11:53 am

"De Geus also pitched at last week's meeting the idea of making a "bold investment," such as building a wellness center"
Looks like the developers have gotten into this issue -- as well as so many other issues. Like Avenidas, for one.


1 person likes this
Posted by parent
a resident of Gunn High School
on Oct 20, 2014 at 12:06 pm

I remember when PSN offered a session to the Gunn PTSA about their findings. It consisted of three or four nice, well-meaning elementary and middle school moms mostly from the north side of town. Their message was that we were not doing right by our children. It was put very nicely and with all good intentions but so far off the mark. And the audience was of course of the ilk that would show up at a mid-morning meeting during AP testing. So they were preaching to the choir to boot. The effectiveness was very low and it bordered on downright insulting.


2 people like this
Posted by gunn parent
a resident of Gunn High School
on Oct 20, 2014 at 2:55 pm

I couldn't agree more with the first couple of comments. We don't need to create another bureaucracy, we need to improve the counseling system at Gunn. It is absolutely shocking at how little has been done there to improve the system, despite clearly documented problems. Schools are too big, too much homework and academic stress. Gunn also needs to move to a block schedule, as Paly did a few years ago, in an incredibly successful effort to reduce academic stress on students. Maybe, finally, with the new superintendent and principal we will see some actual change for the better at Gunn.


1 person likes this
Posted by parent
a resident of Gunn High School
on Oct 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm

all that time spent with the counseling committee. has there really been no implementation? did that committee really advocate an upheaval of the counseling model and of the daily schedule? how can a daily schedule alleviate pressure? it's just a schedule.


Like this comment
Posted by traceychen
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Oct 20, 2014 at 4:32 pm

[Post removed.]



Like this comment
Posted by A parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 20, 2014 at 5:19 pm

@parent,
"it's just a schedule"

Actually, for many kids, constantly switching gears from one subject to another all day long, and then having many different kinds of homework is *extremely* stressful. It works for some, but for others, it's a disaster. Nobel Prize winner Pierre Curie's mother took him out of school for exactly that reason, and basically homeschooled him, so that he could focus on subjects in depth and didn't have to keep switching from one thing to another. Marie Curie then did the same thing for their eldest daughter (also a Nobel Prize winner), who she said was just like her father -- Curie gave her no more than two subjects a day, was done with class before noon, and saved the afternoon for enrichment/projects. In the other kind of system, Curie was described as a "terrible student" by his own mother. For a smart person to be in a system in which they cannot succeed and are constantly struggling because of a learning style is extremely stressful.

Switching gears/attention has its own time cost to it, so block scheduling may actually be more efficient way of learning and using the school day time, especially for those who do not switch gears well. It may allow teachers to cover material better without having to send home homework, too. The kids don't spend that much time at home during the day after they leave school and extracurriculars, so reducing homework can seriously reduce stress and allow kids to have productive control of their limited time outside of school. But reducing homework can be really tough for a teacher who only has the kids' attention for effectively 30 minutes (after they've settled in).

I don't mean for this post to be a discussion of the pros and cons, only to point out to you that scheduling does in fact make a huge difference for some kids. More options for those who need them can only help.


Like this comment
Posted by parent
a resident of Gunn High School
on Oct 20, 2014 at 6:18 pm

@ A parent

Understood and agreed.

But then there are kids who do best in the current system and they would be at a big disadvantage with a block schedule. Changing the schedule would just mean that a different group is effected negatively. By using the Curies as an example it leads the reader to think that the important students, those who have Nobel potential, should be the ones who are given the advantage. I would say they probably have so much mental advantage that they don't need the system to be wrapped around them.

Also, there would be less choice in the district overall because both schools would be the same.

Gunn has had a block schedule in the past and yet they voted against going back to it several years ago. Maybe they know something we don't. Or maybe this schedule suits them and not the students?


2 people like this
Posted by dolf
a resident of Gunn High School
on Oct 20, 2014 at 6:50 pm

dolf is a registered user.

To the Palo Alto community:

I want to start off by saying that this is by no means an attempt to project my frustration and anger onto the Gunn administration, rather this is a desperate plea in light of recent events. I graduated in 2011, at the height of the student suicides, and this was obviously not an easy time period in my life.
In order to understand what I am trying to convey, it's imperative that you understand my personal history. In middle school and the beginning of high school I was a bully. I was mean and definitely made my classmates lives more difficult. The beginning of my sophomore year I was sent to Camp Everytown, and boy did that leave an imprint, as many of you know, Everytown is life-changing for many students. After Camp Everytown, I changed for the better and became a lot more pleasant of a person, it was honestly as easy as that. The final straw was when I first heard of someone committing suicide. I heard it was an Asian student, and the image of a kid I had always picked on immediately popped into my head. It ended up not being the student I thought it was, but I will never forget how I felt when I thought it was; guilty, ashamed, and full of self-hatred. I then realized it shouldn't take someone dying to realize to be nice to everyone. Treat everyone like if they died tomorrow you wouldn't hate yourself for the things you did and said.
I know it's possible to make every single student a more compassionate, open, and positively contributing member of society, because I have seen the change in myself. I am writing this to beg you to please do something. I'm not talking about "If you see something, say something" (which is still important), but I'm talking about something that will get down to the core of each students well-being. Whether it takes sending every single student to Everytown over the course of the year, or bringing a similar type of program to campus, this needs to happen. I understand that some people are genetically predisposed to suicidal tendencies, but I do believe that most that have occurred could have been prevented. Maybe you can find someone to put together a course teaching students about their own personal well-being, and to increase each students sense of self-worth. Maybe it takes forcing each student to meet with an on-campus clinical psychologist for a check-up each semester, where the student will have the opportunity to talk about whatever he or she wants, while the psychologist has an opportunity to identify any underlying signs of depression. I understand that high schoolers aren't always compliant and often think they are "too cool" for things like these, but at this point I really don't see any other option. Teachers could possibly assign lunch buddies, where on a given day students are assigned to one another, and they are forced to eat lunch with someone they didn't previously know, with the aim of openings their minds to people they would have otherwise never gotten to know.
After gradually lifting myself out of the deepest depression one can be in, I know it is possible to live happily, and all I wish is for others to know there is hope. It isn't fair for the students, the families, and the community, and we need to do everything that is physically possible to ensure that no other students miss out on the joy of life.


1 person likes this
Posted by Good people
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 20, 2014 at 11:43 pm

dolf,

"Maybe you can find someone to put together a course teaching students about their own personal well-being, and to increase each students sense of self-worth. Maybe it takes forcing each student to meet with an on-campus clinical psychologist for a check-up each semester, where the student will have the opportunity to talk about whatever he or she wants, while the psychologist has an opportunity to identify any underlying signs of depression. I understand that high schoolers aren't always compliant and often think they are "too cool" for things like these, but at this point I really don't see any other option. Teachers could possibly assign lunch buddies, where on a given day students are assigned to one another, and they are forced to eat lunch with someone they didn't previously know, with the aim of openings their minds to people they would have otherwise never gotten to know. "

Your suggestions are spot on.

I hope the collaborative will read your comments word for word. What a great idea to have semester check ups with an on campus clinical psychologist, and a curriculum for personal well being. Really awesome that you cared to post these suggestions too.


2 people like this
Posted by hard to believe
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 20, 2014 at 11:55 pm

It's hard to believe that with $2 million in city funding Project Safety Net chooses not to pay benefits to their director.


2 people like this
Posted by Paly Alum
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 21, 2014 at 1:02 am

@dolf: Your posting is fantastic.

I was suicidal back in the 80s due to a miserable home life. And I agree that I would have missed out on the joy of my children if I'd left this world.

Depression isn't always due to mental illness, but can be a result of environment. PAUSD needs to address stress now: academic stress (homework overload, stacked tests, unreasonable grading) and social stress. Hiring more counselors helps but students should not be driven to depression in the first place. Agree with dolf that forcing students to know each other is a good idea. Teachers could take the first few days of school to have students get to know each other in class. Students feeling comfortable with each other will lead to a sense of belonging.


1 person likes this
Posted by A parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 21, 2014 at 1:18 am

@parent,

"But then there are kids who do best in the current system and they would be at a big disadvantage with a block schedule. Changing the schedule would just mean that a different group is effected negatively. By using the Curies as an example it leads the reader to think that the important students, those who have Nobel potential, should be the ones who are given the advantage. I would say they probably have so much mental advantage that they don't need the system to be wrapped around them."

I understand and fully agree with your points, too. I think it's so important to find ways to provide choice rather than making it either or, and luckily especially in this day and age, we can provide it. We do already provide choice to some degree through middle school, and then the choice disappears. I used Pierre Curie as an example because his own mother said he was a "terrible student" and a "dreamer" -- in other words, classic boy, couldn't get himself organized to get out of a box, doing badly in school (who would have expected Nobel potential?), nevertheless thrived under the right set of learning circumstances/individualized program. He did Nobel Prize winning work even though he never did shoe-horn himself into doing things the way the schools wanted well. Much has been written especially about how we are failing our boys in education these days, and that's stressful, too.

@dolf,
I am sorry to hear you had to deal with depression yourself. I just wanted to mention this
Web Link
Read the article and discussion afterwards - it deals with an additional way to reduce the load on our kids.

I real somewhere once that in places where a lot was made of the person who committed suicide, and that person was not in the immediate family, it increased risk among young people who grew up seeing that, but if the person was in the same family, it actually decreased risk. In other words, it seems like being closer to the pain and agony that the loved ones endured or experiencing it, reduced the risk of future suicide. Our media have taken one half of that lesson, but not the other, though I am not necessarily inviting them to. It's already almost too much to bear to think about what the family is going through. But would it help to be a closer village and make our kids part of the family so they don't even contemplate it? I don't know, I'm just wondering out loud. Like dolf, I wonder, what else can be done.


1 person likes this
Posted by parent
a resident of Gunn High School
on Oct 21, 2014 at 8:14 am

@parent
I have two of those boys and wish I knew how to support them better. Thank you for clarifying your remarks.

I always get concerned that when a big change is placed on schools the real problem will not be addressed. The folks who are promoting a solution to the problem will make out okay career-wise. But for students there will be a multi-year or even multi-decade distraction without a real solution. Whole language is an example in my opinion. Block schedule and counseling models are the 'solutions' offered at the high schools.

In reality we should be offering non-academic or quasi-academic choices to kids in addition to the academic path. School structure is, relatively speaking, a band-aid solution. If kids truly had choices they would be busy preparing for life rather than needing to spend so much time doing book work or talking with counselors.


1 person likes this
Posted by A parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 21, 2014 at 9:13 am

@parent,
"If kids truly had choices they would be busy preparing for life rather than needing to spend so much time doing book work or talking with counselors."

You have hit the nail on the head.

If you have boys, you've probably seen Thomas the Tank Engine episodes. The impetus for most of the plots is the engines' concern over being "really useful". So it is with most people. We are happy when we find our gifts to the workd, and most do not find it spending every waking hour in a very limited academic way.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

El Camino: Another scheme to increase congestion?
By Douglas Moran | 16 comments | 2,438 views

Couples: Philosophy of Love
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,560 views

Trials of My Grandmother
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 1,083 views

Lakes and Larders (part 2)
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 822 views